Defendants restrained from using phonetically and visually similar trade name "Barbecue" to protect plaintiffs' 30-year-old restaurant brand and goodwill in Nagpur
In a significant ruling on September 1, 2026, the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) allowed an appeal filed by Tervinder Singh Jhans and others, the proprietors of a renowned restaurant operating under the trade name "Barbecue" in Sadar, Nagpur. The court set aside the earlier order of the District Judge, Nagpur, which had declined to grant a temporary injunction against the defendants, Pankaj Rai and others, who were operating a cloud kitchen business under the deceptively similar name "Barbecue Gokulpeth" via online food delivery platforms such as Zomato and Swiggy.
The appellants, who have been running their restaurant business for over 30 years since 1994 and hold registered trademarks and copyrights in the name and logo "Barbecue"/"Barbeque", contended that the defendants’ use of a phonetically and visually similar name was causing confusion among consumers and infringing their intellectual property rights, including copyright in the artistic work related to their logo and label.
The court noted that the plaintiffs had obtained registration of their trademark and copyright, including a device mark featuring the word "Barbecue" in a distinctive cursive style accompanied by a diamond-shaped logo. Evidence of the plaintiffs’ substantial goodwill and reputation in Nagpur was supported by extensive sales records spanning over two decades, amounting to nearly Rs. 39 crore.
The defendants argued that "Barbecue" and "Barbeque" are different words and that their business operated from a different location (Gokulpeth) and primarily through online platforms, thus negating any likelihood of confusion. They also claimed that the plaintiffs had no exclusive rights over the word "Barbecue" alone but only over the composite device mark, and that their use did not amount to infringement.
Rejecting these contentions, the court held that the phonetic similarity between "Barbecue" and "Barbeque", combined with the same line of business – food and beverage services – was sufficient to cause confusion among consumers. The court emphasized that in trademark infringement cases, the overall impression and likelihood of deception must be considered, rather than dissecting the marks individually. It was observed that the use of similar trade names on popular online food delivery platforms heightened the risk of consumer confusion.
Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, including N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation and Sanjay Soya Pvt Ltd v. Narayani Trading Company, the court reiterated the legal principles that a plaintiff need only establish a prima facie case, the balance of convenience, and the likelihood of irreparable harm to secure an interim injunction.
The court found that the trial court had erred in dismissing the injunction on the ground that the businesses operated from different localities. It held that such a narrow view failed to appreciate the realities of consumer behavior in the digital age and the principles of trademark law. Consequently, the court granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from using the name "Barbecue", "Barbeque", or any deceptively similar mark during the pendency of the suit.
This decision underscores the importance of protecting established brands from dilution and the misuse of trademarks in the rapidly evolving food service sector, especially with the growing prominence of online platforms.
Bottom Line:
Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Temporary injunction granted against defendants for using a phonetically and visually similar trade name "Barbecue" that infringed the plaintiffs' registered trade mark, copyright, and goodwill.
Statutory provision(s):
Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 29; Copyright Act, 1957 Section 2(c)
Tervinder Singh Jhans v. Pankaj Rai, (Bombay)(Nagpur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2971165
